1. Home
  2. Ford Mustang Forum
  3. Expected performance of stock `03 GT Vert ? Road tests? Dyno charts?

Expected performance of stock `03 GT Vert ? Road tests? Dyno charts?

Hello,

Can anyone tell me what a bone stock `03 GT convertible will run in the quarter? 0-60?

I have not yet found any road test articles on the GT convertible specifically. The convertible is about 150 pounds heavier than the coupe I believe... I assume that is the only performance related difference between the convertible and coupe.

How would you describe the torque output of the GT 4.6 across the rpm band? Is this engine torquey down low, or does it concentrate the bulk of its power at high rpm? I have yet to see a torque curve graph of the GT 4.6 - is there one on the web someplace? Any dyno charts anywhere for a stock GT

4.6?

I have not yet driven a GT 4.6... I did drive a V6 Stang Vert for a day and fell in love with the car itself, though I felt the engine was way too weak... (my friend's stock 4-door Honda Accord 3.0 V6 would blow the doors clean off it). I can't wait to get my new 4.6 Vert next week.

My last car was an old 455 Trans Am, so I am wondering how happy I will be with the 4.6 GT? I don't expect it to embarrass the 455. However, being a lighter car with modern engine technology and better gearing, I do expect it to kick some butt.

One person told me that I should expect the GT Vert to run high 14's in the

1/4, and 0-60 in about 6 seconds flat. Does this sound right? Regardless of the numbers, I am hoping that the GT is torquey down low so it provides good kick when just driving around town. I enjoy feeling a lot of torque at lower engine speeds. Comments?

Thank you -dm

Reply to
GT-Vert-03
Loading thread data ...

dm,

0-60 in 6 seconds is pretty fast.. I don't know if the GT will be able to do that. Either way (and this applies to the quarter mile, etc) it's not only the car that determines the speed. It's the person behind the wheel that matters also. It's hard to give an actual figure of what YOU'D be able to push since I dont' have a damn clue how you drive =). I have a 98 Mustang GT & she pulls her weight around nicely... even nicer when I put 3.73 gears put in. Anyway... maybe someone will be able to provide you with dyno charts though if they've had their cars dyno'd. I haven't... and I don't have an '03 GT, but they are damn nice cars. I've test driven a couple.

-Mike

Reply to
memsetpc

Hi Mike,

Thanks. Surely things like driver skill, tires, road and weather conditions etc will effect actual performance times. I'm not really too concerned with the exact times that I personally will be able to yield with the car, but more interested in what the average performance results are for these cars to use as a basis for comparison.

You mentioned that 0-60 in 6 seconds is pretty fast. I'd agree. But I read some articles recently stating how guys have been yielding low 5 second 0-60 times in new Mach 1's and mid to low 13 second 1/4 mile times. I realize that the Mach 1 coupe is quite different than a GT Vert in terms of performance capability. I guess reading about the Mach 1 got my hopes up. I wanted to buy a Mach 1 very badly, but they don't make Mach 1 verts... and I had to have a vert... so, the GT vert is the next best thing. A Cobra is just too much $$$ for me right now, plus I am not really a supercharger kinda guy. I've run normally aspirated engines since day 1, and I think I'll keep on this path (not that there's anything wrong with superchargers.) I've always been a believer in cubic inches... my last car had a bored 455 (462)... that's about 7.5 liters (compared to a Stang 281 / 4.6 liter). For this reason I am wondering how happy (or not) I will be with my new GT vert once I get it. Well, the Stang will yield at least TWICE the mpg of my old

462, so that's a pretty big factor, especially at $2.00 per gallon now.

My friend's old G.T.O. vert was always fun to drive, felt plenty "fast", at least for street use... I think he averaged about a mid to high 14 in the quarter on street tires (car was very heavy). So... I guess if the Stang GT vert can yield similar times in the quarter, I'll probably be happy (maybe not thrilled to death, but at least happy). I never actually timed my 462, but I did blow away the above mentioned G.T.O. plenty of times on the street... I was probably running a low 14 or high 13 (in a heavy car with street tires). The best thing about that car was the torque on tap... at almost any rpm in almost any gear at any time, you could stab the pedal and damn near snap your neck... that is if and when you could keep from spinning the tires which was a task... the thing was TOO torquey. Was a beast really. I expect a more refined vehicle overall from the Mustang even if it isn't a brute from hell. These days I've been getting more into "quality verses quantity" anyhow. Just wondering how much "quantity" (of power) the Stang really has. Thanks

-dm

Reply to
GT-Vert-03

Well, with a 455 Trans Am, you had the top-of-the-model-line-up for Firebird in terms of performance.

You might want to look > My last car was an old 455 Trans Am, so I am wondering how happy I will be

Reply to
Walt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.